Very interesting case, and since a prominent anti-tribal jurisdiction legal foundation filed an amicus brief in the matter, one suspects it will go to federal court. In EXC, Inc. v. Keyenta District Court (opinion here), the Navajo Supreme Court held that it would allow the Navajo trial court to hear a wrongful death action against a non-Indian owned tour bus that allegedly killed a Navajo man and an unborn Navajo fetus.
An excerpt:
We find that under the proposition in Strate, U.S. Highway 160 is not “equivalent to non-Indian alienated land for non-member governance purposes.” U.S. Highway 160 is part of the territory of the Navajo Nation for governance purposes over reservation matters as defined by 7 N.N.C. § 254(A) and 18 U.C.S. § 1151 and Montana-Strate is inapplicable.
here is no question that the events giving rise to this claim affected the health, safety and welfare of the Navajo Nation as well as members of the Navajo Nation, satisfying the Long-Arm Statute. The fatalities in this case were a Navajo father and fetus. We take judicial notice that the child, even the unborn child, occupies a space in Navajo culture that can best be described as holy or sacred, although neither of these words convey the child’s status accurately. The child is awę́ę́ t’áá’íídą́ą́’hiną́, alive at conception, and develops perfectly in the care of the mother. The umbilical cord, ííná bita’ nanít’í’, is the life line between the mother and unborn child. The mother, and now the surviving grandmother and aunts (RPIs) have the maternal role of Iíná Yę́sdá hi, which encompasses bearing, raising and teaching a child, as established by White Shell Woman in our journey narratives. See Riggs v. Estate of Tom Attakai, No. SC-CV-39-04, slip op. at 3 (Nav. Sup.Ct. June 13, 2007). It is in the interest of the Navajo Nation government that family members may bring action concerning their children in a Navajo Nation court that fully comprehends how such concerns should be treated on the basis of k’é.
Turtle Talk 